Title: Homo Toxicus Director: Carole Poliquin Release Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film explores how humans are being exposed to and are being filled with toxic chemicals from the products of industries, from agricultural pesticides and herbicides to plastic water bottles. The effects of many of these chemical on the human body are not known for certain, but there is evidence to suggest that many have significant impact on the health of the individual, including psychological disorders, infertility, low male birth rates, cancer, and physical handicaps. The effects of the interactions of more than one of these compounds in the body are not known to any real extent, and alone, these compounds can affect bodily processes even at low, almost undetectable concentrations.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film uses the personal journey of the filmmaker to discuss the issues that play a part in why the modern western person has so many toxins in their body. The first of these issues that come to the fore was the issue of not knowing exactly what the effects of these chemicals are. While it is true that people can see that certain illnesses have increased over the years, like cases of severe allergies, ADD, and thyroid disorders, concrete evidence on the causes of these problems is hard to come by. The difficulty of this science lies in the fact that many of the suspected chemicals can have relatively large effects at low concentrations in the body, and the effects of some of these compounds are not known until years after exposure. Sometimes, the problems are only seen in the next generation, and may not have any visible effect on the mothers or fathers. Even more difficult than these challenges is the task of determining how these chemicals can interact with each other inside the body, and this has not really been explored at all. Our current diagnostic system is incapable of determining which chemicals or combination of chemicals caused the health problems which are sometimes expressed years after first exposure.
A related issue is the lack of quality research into these chemical compounds. Independent research groups will conduct studies of the effects these compounds in question on lab mice and find startling results that suggest a certain issue the tested chemicals cause, and then the companies will get their scientists to test for these same issues, and find no such effect occurring. The disconnect between industry scientists and independent scientists is startling, with tests on products a specific company produces having results that differ completely in conclusions between independent and corporate funded research. The goal of creating these chemical products should be to improve the quality of life for people and other organisms it might be intended for, not to sell people poison until they die of it.
The film also ties this corporate control of test results to corporate control of the government approval of these drugs. When talking about atrazine, a common herbicide, the film mentions that atrazine is banned in Switzerland, the country where it is produced, yet it is completely legal in the United States, the country that imports the largest amount of this herbicide. Independent studies mentioned in the film have shown that atrazine can cause ‘gender-bending’ effects at very low concentrations, causing infertility and gender change in fish and frogs. The EU has put limits on the amount of acceptable atrazine levels at 0.01 parts per billion, but the Canadian government says that this limitation is baseless. A problem with the government process in the US is that it requires proof of chemical effects before it will ban or restrict a product, while the EU can ban a compound based on chemical structural evidence, as the structure of the molecule can give great insight into the possible effects it could have.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? One part of the film that was very compelling was the case studies of several populations where chemicals were affecting these entire people. For example, the Inuit in the arctic suffer both from hearing development issues, as well as ADD and severe allergies in their children due to PCBs and mercury in the fish and seals they eat. This showed how wide and pervasive an effect some compounds can have on a community.
Another compelling part was the discussion of chemicals in the water system, and how they can affect gene expression, namely the “feminization” of males, even at very low levels. The one image of the male baby with the underdeveloped scrotum showed the severity of the issues.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? Overall, I found the film to be a very compelling look at the risk some chemicals pose to ourselves and to other organisms in the world. The fact that the film was extremely focused on the problem and not really at all on the solutions or points of intervention I found to be problematic. It’s difficult to call this problem with the movie an issue as to whether I was not compelled by it or convinced by it; I found the film to be very convincing in delivery of the information it presents, and the style in which it was presented was compelling. Rather, it was just a problem in that it gets across the terrible situation our society is in by inundating ourselves with harmful chemicals without showing the light at the end of the tunnel. There was no ‘solutions’ section to the film, just the presentation of the widespread problems.
What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film best addresses anyone who has used synthesized chemical products, or buys chemically altered foods or materials. With these topics touched upon in the film, it really is a powerful viewing experience for the inquisitive person, as it goes through various examples to demonstrate the effects these chemicals can cause, and how little the Canadian and US governments are doing about them. It is directed at the person who wonders why these chemicals are so controversial, and what is really behind the chemical products they buy. The film is more about a qualitative analysis than a hard, statistical presentation of the issue as well, which is appealing as an introductory film on these issues.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? Despite the benefits of a qualitative analysis of the issues, I still think that more statistical data from studies of these chemicals would have been helpful in making the film’s message stronger. The difficulty in doing this, however, is well noted, as one of the issues made apparent in the film was the difficulty in the very science that would yield this data.
The film could also have benefitted from a more graphical representation of the data that was presented. For instance, the time vs. gender birth rate data could have been a screen-wide graphic to solidify the interviews with the Inuit of Sarnia Ontario. If there was solid data on how low the sperm counts in Missouri are in comparison with the US’s urban centers, a graph or chart could have been made for that.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The only real kind of action the film suggested was activism in the way Carole Poliquin held that feast on the street with “toxic food” on the Toxic Menu. The film was more about the journey the director took after finding out about the different toxins in her body. However there are some actions that I would imagine being effective. The first of these are basic precautions that almost anyone can do, including buying organic foods like those sold at farmers’ markets and looking for natural cosmetics and soaps.
Another action would be to become more involved politically, and to vote for policies and politicians that support stricter regulation of the drug and chemical approval process, as well as independent research of these chemicals.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? The film also talked about atrazine, and there was actually a scientific symposium on the chemical in the film, with a Dr. Tyrone Hayes, who has done independent research on the chemical and has found severe effects due to its endocrine disrupting properties. I wanted to find out more about atrazine so I was looking for independent websites not run by companies and found Dr. Hayes’s. He has a great deal more information on the herbicide online, although the simple explanation of its effect was already explained in the film. It’s still a great website with more in-depth information on exactly how the compound reacts.
I then compared this with an atrazine website run by Syngenta, the company that makes the herbicide, and the two sites couldn’t be any more different. This site either ignores some of the results of Dr. Hayes’s research, or the site says that they used cutting-edge research to disprove everything bad that might’ve been said about atrazine before. It even says that the EPA found the new data for the effect (or lack of) of atrazine on frogs so robust that “there is no compelling reason to pursue additional testing.”
Director: Carole Poliquin
Release Year: 2008
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film explores how humans are being exposed to and are being filled with toxic chemicals from the products of industries, from agricultural pesticides and herbicides to plastic water bottles. The effects of many of these chemical on the human body are not known for certain, but there is evidence to suggest that many have significant impact on the health of the individual, including psychological disorders, infertility, low male birth rates, cancer, and physical handicaps. The effects of the interactions of more than one of these compounds in the body are not known to any real extent, and alone, these compounds can affect bodily processes even at low, almost undetectable concentrations.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film uses the personal journey of the filmmaker to discuss the issues that play a part in why the modern western person has so many toxins in their body. The first of these issues that come to the fore was the issue of not knowing exactly what the effects of these chemicals are. While it is true that people can see that certain illnesses have increased over the years, like cases of severe allergies, ADD, and thyroid disorders, concrete evidence on the causes of these problems is hard to come by. The difficulty of this science lies in the fact that many of the suspected chemicals can have relatively large effects at low concentrations in the body, and the effects of some of these compounds are not known until years after exposure. Sometimes, the problems are only seen in the next generation, and may not have any visible effect on the mothers or fathers. Even more difficult than these challenges is the task of determining how these chemicals can interact with each other inside the body, and this has not really been explored at all. Our current diagnostic system is incapable of determining which chemicals or combination of chemicals caused the health problems which are sometimes expressed years after first exposure.
A related issue is the lack of quality research into these chemical compounds. Independent research groups will conduct studies of the effects these compounds in question on lab mice and find startling results that suggest a certain issue the tested chemicals cause, and then the companies will get their scientists to test for these same issues, and find no such effect occurring. The disconnect between industry scientists and independent scientists is startling, with tests on products a specific company produces having results that differ completely in conclusions between independent and corporate funded research. The goal of creating these chemical products should be to improve the quality of life for people and other organisms it might be intended for, not to sell people poison until they die of it.
The film also ties this corporate control of test results to corporate control of the government approval of these drugs. When talking about atrazine, a common herbicide, the film mentions that atrazine is banned in Switzerland, the country where it is produced, yet it is completely legal in the United States, the country that imports the largest amount of this herbicide. Independent studies mentioned in the film have shown that atrazine can cause ‘gender-bending’ effects at very low concentrations, causing infertility and gender change in fish and frogs. The EU has put limits on the amount of acceptable atrazine levels at 0.01 parts per billion, but the Canadian government says that this limitation is baseless. A problem with the government process in the US is that it requires proof of chemical effects before it will ban or restrict a product, while the EU can ban a compound based on chemical structural evidence, as the structure of the molecule can give great insight into the possible effects it could have.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One part of the film that was very compelling was the case studies of several populations where chemicals were affecting these entire people. For example, the Inuit in the arctic suffer both from hearing development issues, as well as ADD and severe allergies in their children due to PCBs and mercury in the fish and seals they eat. This showed how wide and pervasive an effect some compounds can have on a community.
Another compelling part was the discussion of chemicals in the water system, and how they can affect gene expression, namely the “feminization” of males, even at very low levels. The one image of the male baby with the underdeveloped scrotum showed the severity of the issues.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Overall, I found the film to be a very compelling look at the risk some chemicals pose to ourselves and to other organisms in the world. The fact that the film was extremely focused on the problem and not really at all on the solutions or points of intervention I found to be problematic. It’s difficult to call this problem with the movie an issue as to whether I was not compelled by it or convinced by it; I found the film to be very convincing in delivery of the information it presents, and the style in which it was presented was compelling. Rather, it was just a problem in that it gets across the terrible situation our society is in by inundating ourselves with harmful chemicals without showing the light at the end of the tunnel. There was no ‘solutions’ section to the film, just the presentation of the widespread problems.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses anyone who has used synthesized chemical products, or buys chemically altered foods or materials. With these topics touched upon in the film, it really is a powerful viewing experience for the inquisitive person, as it goes through various examples to demonstrate the effects these chemicals can cause, and how little the Canadian and US governments are doing about them. It is directed at the person who wonders why these chemicals are so controversial, and what is really behind the chemical products they buy. The film is more about a qualitative analysis than a hard, statistical presentation of the issue as well, which is appealing as an introductory film on these issues.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Despite the benefits of a qualitative analysis of the issues, I still think that more statistical data from studies of these chemicals would have been helpful in making the film’s message stronger. The difficulty in doing this, however, is well noted, as one of the issues made apparent in the film was the difficulty in the very science that would yield this data.
The film could also have benefitted from a more graphical representation of the data that was presented. For instance, the time vs. gender birth rate data could have been a screen-wide graphic to solidify the interviews with the Inuit of Sarnia Ontario. If there was solid data on how low the sperm counts in Missouri are in comparison with the US’s urban centers, a graph or chart could have been made for that.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The only real kind of action the film suggested was activism in the way Carole Poliquin held that feast on the street with “toxic food” on the Toxic Menu. The film was more about the journey the director took after finding out about the different toxins in her body. However there are some actions that I would imagine being effective. The first of these are basic precautions that almost anyone can do, including buying organic foods like those sold at farmers’ markets and looking for natural cosmetics and soaps.
Another action would be to become more involved politically, and to vote for policies and politicians that support stricter regulation of the drug and chemical approval process, as well as independent research of these chemicals.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The film also talked about atrazine, and there was actually a scientific symposium on the chemical in the film, with a Dr. Tyrone Hayes, who has done independent research on the chemical and has found severe effects due to its endocrine disrupting properties. I wanted to find out more about atrazine so I was looking for independent websites not run by companies and found Dr. Hayes’s. He has a great deal more information on the herbicide online, although the simple explanation of its effect was already explained in the film. It’s still a great website with more in-depth information on exactly how the compound reacts.
I then compared this with an atrazine website run by Syngenta, the company that makes the herbicide, and the two sites couldn’t be any more different. This site either ignores some of the results of Dr. Hayes’s research, or the site says that they used cutting-edge research to disprove everything bad that might’ve been said about atrazine before. It even says that the EPA found the new data for the effect (or lack of) of atrazine on frogs so robust that “there is no compelling reason to pursue additional testing.”
References:
Dr. Tyrone Hayes’s Site: < http://www.atrazinelovers.com/m0.html >
Syngenta’s Atrazine Website: < http://www.atrazine.com/AtraMain.aspx >